Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Good House-keeping

Thursday, June 29, 2000 | 9:30 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

There's reason to believe that a hint of common sense has returned to the House of Representatives.

Mind you, it is just a small move toward sanity that could, if the wind blows the wrong way, disappear just as quickly as it appeared on the floor of the House this week. So whatever you do, don't gloat, just cheer them on to a small victory for saner election laws.

I have been in the minority for some time now with regard to my position on campaign finance reform. Don't jump to conclusions just yet. I am all for reform, but where I am hesitant is when the government, through congressional action, tries to take away or unreasonably restrict my ability -- OK, my right -- to support any candidate of my choice with my time, energy and financial resources. After all, it is no secret that modern campaigns need far more than volunteer shoe leather to make the impact necessary to win the voters over come election day. We live in a world in which advertising still pays and the candidate who pays the most, just like the commodity advertised in prime time, usually has a better chance for victory.

In short, campaigns cost money and lots of it. And as long as the citizens of this country refuse to accept some kind of public financing or reduced cost advertising as a method of reining in the out-of-control money sprees the candidates must embark upon, then they'll have to raise the dollars necessary to tell their stories.

Regardless of our differing philosophies about government's role in limiting a citizen's right to speak with his mouth or his money, there are few Americans who will disagree with the concept of full disclosure when it comes to telling the voters just who is putting up all those dollars to fuel those money-heavy campaigns or their cousins, the nonprofits who are free to spend and advertise with little or no scrutiny. Until very recently, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives was four-square against any kind of effort to force disclosure by those organizations who are allowed to run issue-type ads that rip a candidate apart but, somehow, manage to stay within the law by not using names.

Actually, I think the leadership is still opposed to any such disclosure, a position that protects these groups from public scrutiny while they go about the business of swaying voters. Under the Internal Revenue Service codes, such contributions may be tax deductible even though purely political speech is not. The result of this loophole is to allow citizens to get tax deductions for political speech that emanates from nonprofit organizations, a situation that promotes a basic unfairness in the political arena and, quite frankly, allows for substantial confusion amongst the voters who don't have the time nor the resources to determine wherein the truth lies.

Thank goodness for election years. Every four years the politicians look for ways to curry favor with the voters so they can go home and announce -- as if they really had something to do with it -- a law that benefits the people. Those laws are defeated soundly when the people aren't paying attention -- read that as nonelection years -- but somehow make it to the president's desk when the voters are actually watching what is going on. That makes me think we should either have more election years or citizens who pay attention all the time to what is or isn't happening in their name.

The vote, which included majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in the House, was a rebuke of sorts to the leadership, which has tried for too long to protect those individuals who have hidden behind the nondisclosure rules for nonprofit organizations. The members, obviously, put the public interest ahead of their own partisan interests and gave the citizens a chance for a law that could start the ball rolling toward reasonable campaign finance reform.

I say reasonable because, regardless of what your position is on restricting a person's right to donate money, there is little persuasive power coming from the side that favors anonymity. I know something about that subject. A newspaper gets all kinds of letters and opinions from its readers. The ones we don't pay attention to, though, are those that come in unsigned -- except in very rare circumstances -- because they are generally the most unreliable. The same holds true for political ads disguised as issue ads. When we don't know who is behind them, they scream incredulity. And yet, given our helter skelter lives, too many people are prone to accept them as fact without questioning their sources.

When we are talking about the process that determines the outcome of democratic elections in this country, the people should be able to know who is supporting what cause. That means whether you give a dollar or a million dollars to a tax-supported political effort, the people have a right to know before they vote who's footing the bills. Campaign commercials are designed to sway voters and do it in 30 seconds or less. But tell the voters who is paying for the ad and it may give them pause before they buy what the ad is selling.

The House recognized -- finally -- the loophole in the tax code that allowed this danger to democracy to exist. Now that the Senate, too, has passed this measure, President Clinton can sign a meaningful bill into law.

It isn't a giant move toward reform, but it is a solid step in the right direction. That's the way of progress.